HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

24 import, and not vice versa, i.e. import should not occasion such sale. (3) The goods must have entered the import stream when they are subjected to sale or purchase. (4) The import of the concerned goods must be effected as a direct result of the concerned sale or purchase transaction. (5) The course of import can be taken

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

24 81. G Srinivasa, s/o Gurappa, aged about 51 years, working as Pharma Assistant Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 82. B K Somashekar, s/o B Krishna, aged about 52 years, working as Pharma Assistant Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 83. K S Ramakrishna, s/o K Subba Rao, aged

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2) the jurisdiction to convict, the State law empowering the Court to convict summarily, the Commonwealth Law making the contravention an indictable offence, and therefore bringing into operation sec. 80 of the Constitution, requiring a jury; (3) the penalty, the State providing a maximum of $ 50 the Commonwealth Act prescribing a maximum of $ 100, or imprisonment, or both

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have - 16 - expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso to section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

price for which it is sold, so, however, that where the actual cost of a motor car is, in accordance with the proviso to clause (1) of section 43, taken to be twenty-five thousand rupees, the moneys payable in respect of such motor car shall be taken to be a sum which bears to the amount for which

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

price realized by sale of flats.  The further observation of civil court that the observation of arbitrator about the firm being not impleaded in proceedings is questioned by Petitioner is unsustainable in law. There is no dispute between the firm and the partners. A firm is only a compendious name of all the partners. When all the partners

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

2. 2009 (7) SCC 363 - Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited. -Vs- State of Haryana & Another 3. 2010 (8) SCC 383 - Meghamala and Ors.-Vs-G Narasimha Reddy and Ors. 4. 2011(9) SCC 1 - K.T.Plantation Private Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka”. 95. As discussed above, with reference to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

VI-A of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 22.2.2013, inter alia, made the addition on account of disallowance of provision of loss of derivative contracts to the extent of Rs.16,35,54,352/- out of total provision made

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

24 of 1934); (d) creation of security interest in any vessel as defined in clause (55) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958); (e) * * * * * (f) any rights of unpaid seller under section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930); (g) any properties not liable to attachment (excluding the properties specifically charged

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

24 of 1934); (d) creation of security interest in any vessel as defined in clause (55) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958); (e) * * * * * (f) any rights of unpaid seller under section 47 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930); (g) any properties not liable to attachment (excluding the properties specifically charged

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

vi) PASS such other order/s of this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 7 In W.P.No.53718/2017, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- (i) DECLARE that the 7th respondent is not required to deduct any tax at source in respect of the compensation amount for acquisition

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

vi) PASS such other order/s of this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 7 In W.P.No.53718/2017, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- (i) DECLARE that the 7th respondent is not required to deduct any tax at source in respect of the compensation amount for acquisition

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

vi) A price in excess of the price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained